And by the way, this was as fine a piece of work identifying the facts as I've seen. Starting with the facts, and going to the principle, is what we are supposed to do. There are those who seem to get this bass-akwards these days. I find value in both summaries. Between you and ewv, the bases are being covered nicely. Thanks to you both for the work and insights.

You are right, of course. While I didn't offer up a complete non sequitur, . . . It is just that these days, I can see the little strings flying everywhere, tying all of this into a piece. I'll try to restrain myself.

Don't forget to add what is happening to the price of food. The mouthpieces may pooh-pooh everything as "hoarding," but I'd bet they haven't sat down and calculated what happens every time you go through your receipts. The fear is based on reality. I keep hearing Miss Rand say, "You asked for it, brother."

Is a definition a statement of a fact of the essence of reality of a concept, or merely a statement of the way we use words in everyday language? When an Objectivist uses the concept "selfishness" does he mean the same thing as just about everybody else on the planet? I'm glad someone brought up Galt's pledge. It helps to define what a pledge is. This was something taken voluntarily by every adult entering the Gulch. Was it important to the scene to mention that it was exclusive to every adult in the valley? Just because the Pledge to the Flag is treated as a mere social good, doesn't mean that it ought to be. Consider the fact that Miss Rand used the term "selfishness" on purpose, to take back the concept, and that wasn't the only term for which she advocated this method (though I'm not going to rehearse all the instances I know of, as this audience, if they don't already know at least some of them, have the brains to look for themselves. Forgive the brevity, but time is of the essence ). As one who grew up pledging to and saluting the honor of the flag, I was taught to believe that I was saluting and honoring the value of the flag. Does what that flag represent, as it flew against the British in the 1812 war, and all that that battle bought for us, not a value to be honored? That battle is the genesis of of the honor. It is also the genesis of our National Anthem. There is almost everything about the song that owns something objectionable, if we look. But we ignore our own history by doing so, rather than by making corrections to the meaning of the words, or simply changes the song's emphasis. Does this mean that we also toss the justified honor of the Pledge? I know that Dr. Binswanger and others have spoken against the idea of the Pledge. I don't agree, obviously. Since I don't care to look up and go into those arguments, I won't address them. But I am aware of them and have taken them into account. As for the grammatical objections, I find them unpersuasive. Do we no longer allow justified poetic license on the part of the author? I like it Byron. Just as I always love your work.

I was happy to see you address A N Other's post, which is as fine an example of education at "Indoctrination U" as I've seen. The position taught is thoroughly racist, assuming that there are no Black Americans but those who indulge themselves in the lowest gangsta culture. We can see the same thing happening in the ridiculous statements by some Black "leaders" who say that Obama isn't "black enough," an assertion made against Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, and every other Black American who doesn't march in lockstep with the rest of a group defined by minority status and victimhood. These people are accused of "acting white," which statement damns young Black Americans to the collectivized mindset of the Left, with its attendant dependency on ... the Left.

Once again, I agree that it is important to stay focused on the subject being discussed. But the subject is being discussed by people. People are giving their opinions. If they are here, I assume that they are putting those opinions out there for the purposes of discussion, not merely making flat statements expecting automatic agreement. It is because man is neither infallible nor omniscient, and, especially because knowledge is contextual, that I engage in discussions with others. I may very well have made an error in my thinking because my knowledge is limited, something that another person with more, or different, knowledge can point out to me. But benevolence is a two way street, requiring both parties to show respect for each other's mind. With this in mind, I don't easily take offense because something I've said is under contention. Unless I have ample and overt evidence that I'm being personally attacked and insulted, I give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker, recognizing that some people have a way of speaking that can be off-putting. I try to focus on what is being said, not how it is being said. I think this is especially important in a context where all we have to go on are another's written words. It sometimes takes a special effort, which I'm not always in the mood to make, in which case, I don't engage. The part I emphasized in your statement above, however, seems to say that I'm supposed to consider the fact that no matter how careful I am in framing my point, I have behaved improperly if someone takes exception and feels insulted--"even if the offense was only in the eye of the beholder and not intended by the speaker." With this onus, how is anyone to feel comfortable saying anything? I don't mind making my meaning clear if someone has misunderstood me, but I could never enter a discussion knowing that any perceived insult by any one involved means that I am behaving improperly.

Dead crows describes my epistemological state very well. It is why I keep trying to find the essence of what this argument is about. Trying to find some kind of coherence in all of the discrete statements has become almost impossible for me.